Page 4, 9th October 1992

9th October 1992
Page 4
Page 4, 9th October 1992 — Archbishop never embroiled

Report an error

Noticed an error on this page?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it.


Locations: Birmingham


Related articles

Archdiocese Skirts Courtroom Drama

Page 1 from 4th September 1992

"class" And The Catholic Novel

Page 2 from 25th April 1947

Ivf Clarified

Page 4 from 30th January 1987

" Catholics " And Catholics

Page 6 from 19th February 1937

Surprise Choice For Successor

Page 1 from 16th December 1994

Archbishop never embroiled

WITH reference to your article (Catholic Herald, September 19) regarding the legalities of the court case concerning Fr Sean Tucker and myself, Ms Gill Devlin.

I would like to clarify the position regarding references made that the Archbishop of Birmingham is embroiled in the proceedings.

After three court dates for a maintenance and custody hearing had been set to resolve this matter, the case could not be heard as the court had to be certain that the child's father was aware of the proceedings.

After a lapse of two years where I hoped that my daughter's father would have made some attempts to make communication with me. I was once again forced reluctantly to reopen the legal proceedings.

At this stage still having no knowledge of his whereabouts my solicitor decided that the best course of action was to apply to the court for substituted service of notification on the Archbishop of Birmingham.

This procedure involves preparing an affidavit to present to the court stating the reasons why the court could be confident that by allowing substituted service on the archbishop, Fr Tucker would receive the summons notifying him of the proceedings and the date of the hearing.

After hearing the affidavit the court would then decide whether the summons for substituted service could be served on the Archbishop.

If this was accepted then the case would be heard in court; if Fr Tucker failed to appear then the court could issue a warrant for his arrest. However, two days before this application was to be heard in court, Fr Tucker contacted the court through a solicitor requesting that this matter be resolved amicably.

After hearing of his request to settle this matter, and to see his daughter, I agreed to drop the proceedings and comply with his request.

He then stated via his solicitor that he wanted to see his child in August and then failed to do so.

His apparent insincerity with regard to his childs future has yet again forced me into restarting legal proceedings which are currently being dealt with by my solicitor.

Gill Devlin

blog comments powered by Disqus